Social and Political Education

In the middle of the scheme for Regional Corporation in the field of communication, education, sports, culture, tourism and business through which peace, progress and prosperity among South Asian countries under the banner of SAARC is moderately a new-fangled concept subject to the importance of socio-economic development of these regions. The framework for the SAARC programme started on in the early 1980 and subsequently it was formed by the detailed monetary and opinionated progress for the preceding years. Due to cost effectiveness, the failures of the North- South conversation in the late seventies formulate many early countries to travel around the promising areas of such co-operation within the countries of the South Asian regions. A number of scheme on regional co-operation were commenced at that period. For case in point, financial Community of West African States in 1975 and Southern African advancement Co-ordination Conference in 1980 were created. By integrating the strength and manpower of the daydream of an equitable global economic order, many states have turned their attention towards their own region for a settlement of an alliance by considering the basic and reliable support of the countries within the specific regions. Nearly every continent has some kind of regional administration, now and then more than one and even largely, these association may be intensified in the sense that they would play role in respect of socio-economic enlistment virtually through out the world.

It is a significant fact that SAARC is one of such actions where politically, the two-pronged atmosphere between India and some of its neighbouring countries deteriorated during 1974-76. Consequent upon such criteria, these two neighbouring countries started gazing for regional and international loom to force India so as to take out adjustment from it on their particular two-pronged issues. The first move of Bangladesh in order to raise the river-water sharing issue at the UN in 1976, Nepal’s suggestion to acquire it standard as a zone of peace and Pakistan’s active peacekeeping at the United Nations to search out South Asia acknowledged as a nuclear-weapon free zone possibly will be evoked at this juncture. Soviet forces interference in Afghanistan in 1979 had conveyed about a serious flagging in the South Asian safekeeping state of affairs and fashioned urgency for getting together in the region. Although it is factual that the peripheral pressures to form a South Asian regional system of government were not as great as it was in the case of the European Community, they were not absolutely missing or insignificant. Internal or external what ever was the cause the level of urgency for regional co-operation was not bedded on equal concepts in the midst of the South Asian states.

During May 1980, Bangladesh had controversial proposition for a South Asian regional system of government after argument with some small South Asian states. India and Pakistan, the two life-size powers in South Asia, articulated strong uncertainties. This tentativeness reveals the survival of many suspicious questions among the South Asian states. India was highly apprehensive of the application and outlook it as a new-fangled device to institutionalise the neighbours ‘ganging up’ in opposition to India to mine dispensation on issues heart-rending each of them independently. Pakistan trepidation that any South Asian forum would sooner or later India’s welfare and legitimises its regional ascendancy in South Asia. Also, in accordance with conceptual view of Pakistani authorities, in South Asia economic and political conditions for institutionalising regional co-operation were missing. Both India and Pakistan accepted the proposal for regional co-operation only ‘in principle’. They could accept a regional forum only when it did not seek to undermine their respective interests. Accordingly, it was suggested that unanimity in taking decisions and avoidance of two-pronged and controversial issues should comprise the basic standard of the anticipated forum ahead.

In keeping with those diverse attitudes, the seven South Asian states (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) officially were underway in respect of their co-operation from their first apex supposed on 8th December 1985 in Dhaka. They were well conversant that heterogeneous issues might encumber their co-operation, but for accomplishing their relevant goals they thought within themselves to work jointly. Their longing for financial liberation, facilitated them to start off pondering and rethinking their available resources in question.

Even though the seven South Asian states as regards their integration, the prospect of SAARC as an effective body for regional integration continues to be reflected with cynicism. When countries in other regions were trying to minimise their differences, it is disconcerting to see that this region remains trapped in conflict of war, sapping its energy and resources that could be diverted to launching an unpleasant on poverty. In this post-cold war period, and at a time when we are at the threshold of a new century, South Asia should not be out of peace, harmony and development even for a single day. Analysis of differences among the SAARC states and symptomatic of solution is thus a very imperative and well-timed issue.

In relation to forming a forum of SAARC, required guidelines focussing was planned to be placed on the heterogeneity among the countries of South Asians regions which state its effect on the regional integration process in South Asia. There are of course some strong commonalties among the South Asian states, for example, their colonial past, a broadly common attitude towards Western countries, common needs development, common needs to alleviate poverty, some similarity in culture, etc. These similarities could be helpful for the states to minimise their differences. And one most positive aspect is that the member states of SAARC are hopeful about their success. In the paper I will also try to show that, if heterogeneity is greater in South Asia, the regional incorporation will be less effectual. In case those differences can be minimised, greater integration will be possible. Before tentative the specific case of SAARC as a regional amalgamation process, some discussion about the meaning of region and regional integration is necessary.

Regional addition has become a very common way of co-operation among states in present day worldwide relationships. Normally a ‘region’ is an area where some geographically adjacent states join together to achieve their common objectives. As I mentioned earlier, in the present time more or less every nation-state, strong or weak, is a member of a regional system. But there are some states which exist on the borderline between two regions. That is one of the reasons for those states not joining in any regional co-operation arrangements. Although geographical considerations are an important factor for the formation of a region, other factors-for example, social, economic, political, historical, and organisational – are also important. So we can say that a region consists of two or more proximate states and interacting states which have some common ethnic, linguistic, cultural, social, and/or historical bonds, and whose sense of identity is sometimes increased by the actions and attitudes towards those of states external to the region.

The component states of SAARC are physically nearby with each other. These states have somewhat in widespread. For illustration, they have some frequent communal and chronological bonds. These states have common colonial past. Those states (for example Nepal) who were not under colonial rule have also been influenced by that rule owing to geographical proximity with India. There is some cultural commonality among the SAARC states. But where the region ends-for example, on the eastern side, erstwhile Burma, now Myanmar is neither a member of SAARC nor yet of ASEAN. On the western side Afghanistan neither belongs to the Middle East nor to the South Asian group. These states exist on the borderline between two regional systems. Ernst Haas distinct assimilation as a propensity towards the voluntary creation of generously proportioned political units, each of which self-consciously shun the use of force in the relations between the participating units and groups Leon N. Lindberg defines integration as the process whereby states miss out on the desire and ability to conduct foreign and key domestic policies independently of each other, seeking instead to make joint decisions or to delegate the decision making process to new central organs. He also defines integration as the process whereby political actors in several distinct settings are convinced to transfer their opportunity and political performance to a new midpoint. Lindberg provides such explanation in his work on the European neighbourhood. But he dispensed to give an all-inclusive classification about regional integration processes.

Regional Co-operation means the responsibility of answerability for originating regional policies, developing rules and regulations, and for applying these policies to all markets at a regional level, overriding national control. Integration thus requires members of a grouping to cede sovereignty over particular economic functions and activities as well as policies and instruments to an authority or institution which exercises its power at a regional level. Integration thus means formulating and applying policies- for example, regarding trade, exchange, labour, fiscal and monetary policies- at the regional level. Integration may also imply the development of a common currency and a single central bank or monetary authority which regulates the monetary and indirectly the fiscal parameters within which national governments function. While being entirely proficient, integration implies the free movement of all factors of production and technology across boundaries within the region. In its ultimate form of political union, it would require a regional legislature.

There are different schools of thought regarding the methods and approaches to integration. The Federalist school of thought sees integration in legal and institutional terms. For federalists integration is an end-product rather than a process. It stands for a political union among previously sovereign and independent states. Federalists recommend the adoption of their approach on both a regional and a global scale. They consider the anarchic nation-state system to be primarily responsible for war. The functionalist knows that nation-state system is changeable and is the cause of violence divisions, which undermine the real needs and interests of humankind. They tried to give importance on specific tasks of economic and welfare co-operation. This would avoid divisive political debate, but at the same time create a community of interest which would ultimately render national frontiers meaningless. According to the functionalist observation, technical group effort in one sector generates a felt need for functional collaboration in other sectors.

The common route to regional integration is through progressive liberalisation of trade relationships between members of a regional community, which could progress through various stages:

A Preferential Trade Area with lower tariffs; then a Free Trade Area with no tariffs;

A Custom Union with common external tariff useful for external trade;

A Common Market with free progress of all factors of production and constancy in internal exchange rate with full convertibility;

An Economic Union with common currency and a unified monetary policy and a Political Union with unified judicial and legislative process of members’ states.

Alternatively, the term regional co-operation is a slack make-up of integration. It indicates an enthusiasm on the part of countries to work together in attaining regional economic security on the postulation that, in the long run, this self-control end result in enhancing national economic interests and welfare even if national interests might need to be subordinated in the short run.

In light of the above squabble, it is evident that the position of SAARC as a regional co-operation is based on feasible foundation in quest of peace and prosperity of these regions. In December 2008 SAARC will be 20 years old and as such if we take stock of regional co-operation from commencement to present time, we will see that, since inception, even though the organization has been focussed on core issues but from the very beginning core areas were excluded from SAARC agenda, and that position persists to this day. Thus after its hopeful launch, SAARC performances have vegetated and have botched to promote any noteworthy co-operation in the core political and economic areas. On the other hand, in other areas SAARC has recognized number of institutions. For example, in 1988 the SAARC Agricultural Information Centre was established in Dhaka. The Technical Committee on Education (established in 1989) and the Technical Committee on Sports, Arts and Culture (established in 1983) were merged into a single Technical Committee on Education and Culture. SAARC has also conventional the Technical Committee on Environment. The SAARC Meteorological Research Centre has previously been recognized for chipping in information data in this respect. The first meeting of the Technical Committee on Health and Population activities was held on 1984. Important activities undertaken by this committee include the setting up of the SAARC Tuberculosis Centre in Kathmandu in 1992. The SAARC Drug Offences Monitoring Desk (SDOMD) has been established in Colombo to analyse and disseminate information on drug offences, and efforts have been directed for conclusion of regional drug convention and harmonisation and consolidation of national drug laws. The Technical Committee on Rural Development identified priority areas for implementing its programmes on poverty alleviation, employment generation, women development, environment and technology transfer. There are technical committees for Science and Technology; Tourism; Transport and Women Development etc. Core political and economic areas remain absent from their co-operation process. SAARC states have not assigned any responsibility to SAARC to develop rules and regulation, which they can apply for all. They did not ceded part of their sovereignty to their regional body. The SAARC states are working together to achieve their regional interest on the assumption that, in the long run, this will result in achieving harmony and welfare in the region. In this respect we can term SAARC as a mere regional organisation for co-operation .SAARC has a number of developments in its progression of incorporation. For example, the South Asian states signed the SAPTA (South Asian Preferential Trading Arrangement) on 11 April 1993 in Dhaka during their seventh summit. SAPTA is working towards removal of tariffs and non-tariff barriers. In May 1997 at the ninth SAARC Summit, member states agreed steadily to relax trade barriers until a Free Trade Area (FTA) is established by the year 2001. So the eventual goal of the South Asian states is to establish South Asian Free Trade Area. Though the official name of organisation is South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation, but we can consider it as a South Asian integration process. If South Asian states can minimise the possibility of war among themselves, then the word ‘integration’ will be more appropriate for SAARC.

In view of the above discussion it is obvious that the fundamental demarcation in respect of religious way of life sometime creates serious irritant in South Asia. In terms of number of followers, Hinduism has the leading number of followers, with Islam and Buddhism being the two other major faiths. Although a strong secular movement was launched by the Indian and numerous other South Asian governments, it failed to minimise cultural gaps among the various religions. Most prominent clashes between religious groups look like to involve Hindus and Muslims, or one Muslim faction against another, or Sikhs and Hindus, or Buddhists and Hindus. Relations between the two most powerful states of South Asia, India and Pakistan, have been greatly convoluted by religious factors.